VOTE--or don't--your conscience on November 6th, 2012.
Posted on 06/08/2012 12:28:58 PM PDT by neverdem
Contact: Charlotte Sellmyer, 202-225-3951
Chairman Smith: Regrettably, the Obama administration has shown a disregard for the Constitution and rule of law in an effort to impose their agenda on the American people. There are many examples.
Efforts to block congressional inquiries about the Administration’s actions undermine the balance of power on which our nation was founded.
The Department of Justice still has not provided enough information about Operation Fast and Furious so that the American public and Congress can judge who in the Department bears responsibility for the decisions that led to Agent Brian Terry’s death.
The Justice Department refuses to comply with Congressional subpoenas that may shed light on why this program was authorized and who had knowledge of the inappropriate tactics.
The Department of Justice also has failed to provide relevant information that would have revealed the extent of Justice Kagan’s involvement in the development of the Affordable Care Act when she was Solicitor General.
If she did give counsel on the health care bill, which was her job, then she should recuse herself rather than evaluating the law as a member of the Supreme Court. The Justice Department has refused to let us interview her former assistant.
Neglecting to enforce or defend the laws enacted by Congress is another violation of the Administration’s constitutional obligation to the American people.
Under this President, the Justice Department has engaged in a pattern of selective enforcement of the law in order to advance its own partisan agenda.
For instance, the Obama administration has sought to prevent state and local authorities from enforcing immigration laws.
At the same time, the Justice Department has refused to bring cases against sanctuary cities that violate Federal law by prohibiting their officials from communicating with the Department of Homeland Security about illegal immigrants they encounter.
Such sanctuary cities directly challenge the federal government’s authority to enforce immigration laws. The Administration’s unwillingness to uphold immigration laws has led to injuries and even death.
The Administration refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton.
This was a significant piece of legislation that was approved by a vote of 342 to 67 in the House and 85 to 14 in the Senate. Regardless of how one feels about the substance of the bill, the Department of Justice has an obligation to defend the laws of the land.
Efforts by the Administration to override election laws enacted by States also raise constitutional concerns.
Instead of acting to prevent voter fraud, the Department of Justice has challenged common-sense voter ID laws that require voters to identify themselves before they are allowed to vote.
The Department of Justice recently moved to block implementation of voter ID laws enacted by legislatures in Texas and South Carolina.
The Texas proposal was based on a similar law passed by the Indiana legislature, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008. The Justice Department’s challenge to the law ignores Supreme Court precedent that affirms a state’s right to enact laws to protect the integrity of its elections.
The Department of Justice even threatened to sue Florida for trying to remove ineligible non-citizens from its voter rolls.
Why would the Department of Justice not want states to remove ineligible felons, ineligible non-citizens, and the dead from their voter rolls?
The Administration’s actions aren’t just wrong--they are arrogant, undemocratic, and an insult to the rule of law.
The Administration’s disregard for the Constitution and rule of law not only undermines our democracy, it threatens our national security.
The Justice Department has not taken the initiative to prosecute leaks of national security secrets. Recent leaks about a foiled bomb plot out of Yemen and a cyber attack against Iran are, in the words of Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, “very detrimental . . . very concerning . . . [and] hurt our country.”
For the past three and half years, this Administration has engaged in a pattern of obstructionism, unaccountability, and partisanship.
The American people should have confidence that the Department of Justice fairly enforces laws. That confidence is lacking today. This hearing will explore how that confidence can be restored.
VOTE--or don't--your conscience on November 6th, 2012.
Yep ... there are always ready and willing to deploy the old “racism” charge. It will ever be so until it is faced down and destroyed. Simply by not acting the threat is successful. And that will be so until it is faced down and destroyed.
I don’t yet see anyone with the courage to do so on the horizon. Probably it will be on the order of Rosa Parks being to tired to give up her seat. She didn’t get on the bus with the intention of dealing a crippling blow to racism, she was just tired.
Some day someone else who is just tired will tell the bellicose man shouting “racism” that he can put his words where the sun never shines.
Late Friday dump of rodents into the hallways on the Hill.
ping
BTTT.
I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful analysis of Congressman Lamar Smith's statement of Judiciary Oversight Committee hearings. I think you are on target. I agree with another person on this thread who feels skeptical that Republicans (as you say) "will be able to deal effectively with this bill of particulars against the Obama administration and the Holder DOJ."
I would be glad to hear the thoughts of others on this topic, and I think this thread is an overlooked opportunity, so I am inviting others into the conversation. I think this thread could be thousands of posts long, especially if hearings start and as they proceed.
Of particular interest to me is the idea expressed by commentators recently that the Democratic Party (and to some extent the Media) is turning against Obama. I put forth as evidence: 1. The possible opposition of the Clintons -- seen in statements made by Bill recently, 2. Statements by ulstrman / WH insider that efforts are being made by bigtime power players to oppose Obama, 3. Rumors from the military that they have gotten wind of something they don't like coming up in the next few months, 4. Obama falling out of favor with the more extreme left because he has disappointed him, 5. Decrease in his popularity seen in polls of youth, women, and blacks, etc, etc.
If the media (known for elevating, then excoriating those who come to their attention, usually such a ~Short~ attention span though it is) should be about to turn against Obama, I think it will be a fascinating drama to behold. However -- again something I read in a collumn, not my own idea-- opposition from the media could be a dangerous thing. In my opinion, Obama, with his imperious ways, has not gone out of his way to be nice to the media. Also, his Press Secretaries (Carney and Gibbs, both) have been condescending to them and presumed on their good will.
Fascinating Statement by Lamar Smith. Hope something more comes of it. It certainly seems to "draw a line in the sand"!
Could the "House Judiciary Oversight Committee Statement" be the beginning of a long list of offenses OR WHAT!?!?!?!??
I wonder if Sen Feinstein “signed off” on the use of her quote in Lamar Smith’s statement... in other words, do we have “buy in” from some elements of Democratic Party leadership on this effort??
I would be honored to hear your thoughts on this topic.
txnuke
Of course it’s racism. That’s the reason the Marxist chose them.
Hmmmmm. Nixon was never impeached.
Impeachment proceedings were underway in the House, but he resigned before they came to a vote.
ANYWAY, I wonder if she is supportive of the House Judiciary Oversight committee statement. She is chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and maybe she is fed up with these latest national security "lapses"!
Just a little wishful thinking here.
bttt
I wouldn’t know what protocol would cause the House Judiciary Chair to seek permission from the Senate Intelligence Chair to quote her in his bill of particulars against Holder.
All he did was take from the public domain her quote of concern about national security leaks.
He didn’t imply that she was somehow in support of his bill of particulars against Holder.
I wouldn’t read into his usage of her quote anything more than what appears on the surface.
I do agree with another post of yours that it’s at least possible this litany by Smith is very important.
Time will tell.
“More than just RINO words”???? Ping to self
Ping to self, so I can keep up with this.
I am hopeful that this will amount to something, but not optimistic.
You have two things wrong, Nixon was not impeached, he resigned before he could be impeached and a movement to impeach Obama has been introduced in the house although it will never get enough support to go anywhere. But you are right in that the combined wrongs of Nixon and Clinton don’t approach the level of what Obama is doing every day. The fact that Obama still gets as much support as he does illustrates the amazing stupidity of the average American. The typical sixth grade dropout who worked at the feed mill sixty years ago was better informed about reality than half of today’s voters are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.